If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Magazine)   Say what you will about the tenets of supply-side economics, dude - at least it's an ethos   (nymag.com) divider line 33
    More: Interesting, The Big Lebowski, Luke Russert, nihilists, fiscal policy  
•       •       •

1826 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 11:33:07 AM
Why is this headline being posted repeatedly?
 
2013-01-03 12:21:43 PM

NFA: Why is this headline being posted repeatedly?


Freeper Thursday

/the holidays are over
 
2013-01-03 01:37:14 PM
Say what you will about the tenets of supply-side economics, dude - at least it's an ethos

You spelled 'pathos' incorrectly.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 01:43:39 PM
You mean p...

Uranus Is Huge!: Say what you will about the tenets of supply-side economics, dude - at least it's an ethos

You spelled 'pathos' incorrectly.


My work here is done.
 
2013-01-03 01:45:53 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: You spelled 'pathos' incorrectly.


We also would have accepted "bathos".
 
2013-01-03 01:45:53 PM
www.vanityfair.com
8-year-olds, Dude
 
2013-01-03 01:46:34 PM

imontheinternet: 8-year-olds, Dude


Eight year old turtles are fully sexually mature and, indeed, are somewhat elderly.
 
2013-01-03 01:46:52 PM

NFA: Why is this headline being posted repeatedly?


Mine was redlit.

/sulks
 
2013-01-03 01:49:11 PM
that article was a heck of a stretch
 
2013-01-03 01:49:16 PM
I have it on good authority that Obama farking hates the Eagles, man.
 
2013-01-03 01:53:05 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: You spelled 'pathos' incorrectly.

 
2013-01-03 01:56:43 PM
slowclap.jpg
 
2013-01-03 02:01:55 PM
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people have the wrong idea of supply-side, and so argue against it in very strange ways that most economists dismiss as naive.

Supply-side economics is a form of Keynesian economics. It actually believes that government action can be stimulative to the economy, in contrast to Austrian schools. It takes the position, though, that there are supply-limited pathways that can be stimulated, whereas most Keynesian analysis is focused on demand-limited pathways.

Unfortunately, most supply-limited pathways are resource-limited. Supply is low because petroleum, aluminum, soy, SOME NATURAL RESOURCE, is limited in availability. These things cannot be stimulated with greater funds. Additionally, there are things like investment where you cannot realistically argue that there is not enough money in the hands of the investment class to provide a supply-limiting pathway for analysis. Even looking at hundreds of billions of dollars of infusion, the marginal effect of such is miniscule to the actual supply out there.

So what is left? That's where this article fails. It seems to accept the notion without coming to resolve the actual crux of the intellectual debate on supply-side economics - that there doesn't seem to be major pathways that are supply-limited in a way that government can help - and then the smaller ones should actually be target and not just blanketing the rich with money under the false equivalence that rich=supply-limited. Quite the opposite, in fact, the rich are the least likely to be supply-limited. They are the ones with capital and have the lowest marginal effects of such action.

Demand limits are everywhere, from consumer goods to many service industries. The marginal utility of government investment here is huge. That's the debate that should be had.
 
2013-01-03 02:08:22 PM
The basic text for understanding this situation, as with so many situations, is The Big Lebowski.

I can agree with that
 
2013-01-03 02:13:30 PM

ex0du5: Supply is low because petroleum, aluminum, soy, SOME NATURAL RESOURCE, is limited in availability. These things cannot be stimulated with greater funds


Well, to an extent they can be. By reducing the costs of extracting oil (through tax breaks or subsidy), it becomes more economical to produce more oil, since you'll be able to retain your margin and increase volume.

But that's in theory, and in practice, we tend to find that reducing the costs of production doesn't tend to increase the supply of the good in most supply-constrained areas. This is even more true in areas where demand in fairly inelastic- the consumption of oil in the US is not going to decrease. At best, we can expect its growth rate to decrease.

ex0du5: Demand limits are everywhere, from consumer goods to many service industries. The marginal utility of government investment here is huge.


The problem becomes one of ideology. Subsidizing demand is "handouts" and "wealth redistribution". Subsidizing supply is "rewards for success".
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 02:16:11 PM

NFA: Why is this headline being posted repeatedly?


Obviously you're not a golfer.
 
2013-01-03 02:22:49 PM
The problem is that Republicans have concluded he'll do it again.

That's a pretty bold conclusion to come to given the fact that Obama has made his most forceful comments about the debt ceiling debate recently.

"While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they have already racked up,"

It would be really bad for Obama to go back on such a definitive statement such as that and I don't expect him to.
 
2013-01-03 02:23:32 PM

ex0du5: Unfortunately, I think a lot of people have the wrong idea of supply-side, and so argue against it in very strange ways that most economists dismiss as naive.


The problem is that many of the people who preach supply-side also have the wrong idea about it---they use "supply-side economics" as an excuse to concentrate as much wealth as possible in the hands of those who were already wealthy.
 
2013-01-03 02:31:13 PM

SovietCanuckistan: The basic text for understanding this situation, as with so many situations, is The Big Lebowski.

I can agree with that


Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
 
2013-01-03 02:33:45 PM
Oh, and subby?

Say what you will about the tenets tenants of supply-side economics, dude - at least it's an ethos.

Pet peeve.
 
2013-01-03 03:46:40 PM
So is "killing children and drinking their blood," but I see little support for it.
 
2013-01-03 04:29:59 PM
pop-up video ad = NO
 
2013-01-03 04:32:14 PM
Nice marmot.
 
2013-01-03 04:44:27 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Say what you will about the tenets of supply-side economics, dude - at least it's an ethos

You spelled 'pathos' incorrectly.


^^^^^^That's how you comment^^^^^^

The rest of us need to RTFM
 
2013-01-03 04:58:24 PM

Richard Freckle: Uranus Is Huge!: Say what you will about the tenets of supply-side economics, dude - at least it's an ethos

You spelled 'pathos' incorrectly.

^^^^^^That's how you comment^^^^^^

The rest of us need to RTFM


Thanks for the TF, Mr Freckle!
 
2013-01-03 05:11:38 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Richard Freckle: Uranus Is Huge!: Say what you will about the tenets of supply-side economics, dude - at least it's an ethos

You spelled 'pathos' incorrectly.

^^^^^^That's how you comment^^^^^^

The rest of us need to RTFM

Thanks for the TF, Mr Freckle!


Please call me Dick.
 
2013-01-03 05:20:14 PM
Look at the situation with that camel-farker over in Iraq.
 
2013-01-03 05:36:36 PM

BMulligan: Oh, and subby?

Say what you will about the tenets tenants of supply-side economics, dude - at least it's an ethos.

Pet peeve.


Uhh.

tenet - any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., especially one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.

Pretty sure subby had it right the first time, unless there's a joke I'm missing.
 
2013-01-03 07:08:48 PM
You know who else had an "ethos"?
That's right.
 
2013-01-03 09:54:50 PM

imontheinternet: [www.vanityfair.com image 500x550]
8-year-olds, Dude


Duck

Duck

Duck

Duck

www.vanityfair.com

TURTLE!!!

/runs
 
2013-01-04 12:39:20 AM

BMulligan: Oh, and subby?

Say what you will about the tenets tenants tennants of supply-side economics, dude - at least it's an ethos.

Pet peeve.

img11.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-04 06:55:10 AM
"Supply side economics" is a phrase invented by journalists. It does not mean anything in the world of economics. Stop using it.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-01-04 07:31:52 AM

DrPainMD: "Supply side economics" is a phrase invented by journalists. It does not mean anything in the world of economics. Stop using it.


Herbert Stein was an economist for Nixon. You fail.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report